1. How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

The issue of state surveillance is pertinent to our world today. Since the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the development of surveillance has been on the fast track. State surveillance has been
revolutionized with new technologies ranging from heat sensors that identify people according
to the halos of their heat emissions, to Smart ID cameras that can identify a person from their
gait. Yet these extensive surveillance measures seem to be an infringement on the rights to
privacy of the individuals that are subject to them. It is debatable as to how much the privacy of
individuals should be compromised in exchange for a state’s social interests. States justify their
use of state surveillance as a means to guard state interests such as combating terrorism and
crime, yet the benefits of extensive surveillance is questionable and should be weighed carefully
against the costs of individual freedom before implementation. It is crucial for states to achieve
a balance that allows for both stable state security and individual freedom. The state should not
have the right to monitor the actions of people beyond the extent that majority deems as an
affront to personal freedom.

It is important then for the people in a state to take ownership over their own rights to personal
freedom. If the people in a state passively allow the government to constantly impose
surveillance on them without voicing displeasure, they cannot fault the state for their loss of
personal freedom. An example of a state whereby too much state surveillance has become an
issue the United Kingdom. It has become the most watched state in the world today, with one
CCTV to every 16 people and the largest DNA database, with over 7% of the population having
their DNA samples taken and stored. Voices of dissent have emerged from the people in the
state. In February 2009, lawyers, judges, politicians, human rights supporters, anti-surveillance
activists and various other groups and individuals had gathered for the Convention on Modern
Liberty. The convention was aimed at addressing individual freedom issues via open-minded
public debate so as to reach a common ground in the defence of individual freedom. The large
scale movement by the people sufficiently indicates that the state in this case, has gone too far
in its monitoring of the actions of people within its borders. If there is a large majority that feels
threatened by the power that the state holds over them through extensive surveillance, as an
elected democracy, the state should not have the right to continue with this extent of state
surveillance of its people. Legislation and privacy impact assessments should be reviewed by the
state to achieve a compromise with the people in this aspect.

It is crucial that state surveillance does not cross the line of monitoring actions of people beyond
the point that is causes their unease as it can lead to undesirable effects. These effects include
disenchantment with politics and distrust the government. Again, these effects are exemplified
in the UK. Lord Goodlad had been quoted saying that, “The huge rise in surveillance and data
collection by the state and other organizations risks undermining the long-standing tradition of
privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy.” Indeed, privacy is a pre-requisite
for various forms of individual rights concerning freedom. Take for example UK’s government
plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mail. If people had to filter
their speech and expression of opinions even privately amongst their friends, then this takes
away their most basic freedom of having personal opinion. This would then go beyond people
not feeling good about having their privacy invaded. Problems that surface would also be more
serious than accusations of the government not using surveillance powers proportionately or
criticisms of the ineffectiveness of surveillance to tackle terrorism and crime. It could undermine
the democracy of the state. This is because the power balance between the people and the
government would be upset. In Britain for example, the parliament is elected by the people.
There should then be a system of checks and balances in place to keep the government from
enacting laws that infringe on the people’s rights to personal liberty. If this cannot be achieved,
then political stability cannot be guaranteed in a state that can no longer take pride in being a
democratic state. This is why the state should not have the right to monitor the actions of
people beyond the extent that majority deems as an affront to personal freedom.

Arguments for the right of the state to monitor the actions of people within its borders are that
the state has social interests to protect. Social interests such as to guard against terrorism and
to reduce crime and violence in the state. However, even if the intention of the state is honest
and with the welfare of the people in mind, merely having good intentions does not give any
state the right to take state surveillance to extremes. It is often not clear cut as to what can be
considered extremes. Extremes such as the society described in George Orwell’s novel 1984 is
not yet of a concern in the world today. However, parallels can be drawn between states such as
North Korea and the dystopian state described in 1984. This should be a reminder that there
definitely needs to be a limit to state surveillance. A power balance between the people and the
government must be maintained and pervasive state surveillance is a threat to this balance.
Therefore, I believe that any state should not have the right to monitor the actions of people
beyond the extent that majority deems as an affront to personal freedom.